Search results

There's a distinction. 24 watts/ft2 is the total electrical useage. The measure he used is PAR watts/ft2 (i.e. the amount of electricity that is "converted" to light, which is a portion of the total electrical useage that does not include the heat generated by the LEDs or the driver, etc.).

So you still haven't offered any proof. I'm just saying that's a little a suspicious.

Do you have any proof you're not a wife beater?

Use this one. I have to believe it's pretty accurate. Apogee set it up expressly to calibrate their quantum meters. http://clearskycalculator.com/quantumsensor.htm Assuming I have the inputs right (I just used Berlin, since I don't know your exact location), your measurement was close to...

Nope. That's about right for noon. The intensity should be higher a little later in the afternoon.

Thanks, I'll check it out. The ones I linked to are $33 (not really any difference, for me) and output almost 4 watts. I'll figure out how to covert that to microwatts as a function of distance.

Did you look at my link? The bulbs I linked are UV-B centered too.

They don't provide UV-B. Whether it's needed, or even beneficial, is the subject of some debate. Do some reading and decide for yourself.

Is it better than these: http://www.ushio.com/files/specifications/low-pressure-mercury-arc-blacklight.pdf Looks like it could be higher output (they don't give it as a factor of distance, so some math would be needed to make sure), unless there's something in the spec sheet that I'm missing...

Check out the 13th post here: https://www.rollitup.org/t/spectral-lightmeter-gigahertz-optik-msc15.913239/

I have a very novice question: should we compare between graphs, or should we consider each an independent test (because the setup or conditions might have changed between tests)? Since these are actual measurements (not theoretical calculations), I would assume they're very sensitive to...